Well, let me ask you this, who's more powerful, a God that HAS to be real to do the Creation, or a God that can create everything while not being real at all???
When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing.
"Ok, so what is this Creator like?" Well, the word "nonexisting" pops into my mind, considering that we do not have a single shred of actual evidence for any Creator...
I love how Muslims copy Christian apologetic arguments and just assume that they point to *their* god instead. Then again, many of those Christian arguments were copied off older Greek and Roman apologetics for the gods. Round and round the merry-go-round.
Not defending any monotheist apologetics but the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) Christianity Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig love the Kalam
It's more that Christians commandeered Greek philosophical concepts into their apologetics, Islam came about with these ideas already in the cultural sphere, and Islamic scholars developed what many now call the Kalam cosmological argument, popularized by WLC in modern times, the inclusion of Kalam in the title being a nod to the argument's Islamic roots. These are ideas you can find in ancient Greek philosophical concepts, they have been incorporated into the Abrahamic apologetics since all of the time. I think the lack of a prominent, formalized bit of sophistry the Islamic apologists frequently make the fatal logical issues very glaring and obvious. WLC and his sophistry have done a lot to confuse people into thinking that the argument merits legitimate discussion
To clarify.. WLC used the Islamic 'arguments' and further developed them into what he named, and we all know as, the Kalam Cosmological argument. I worded that badly before.
@@Petticca To clarify the monotheistic perfect "God" Yahve got some religions with many branches, differents schools and thousands of denominations maybe some miscommunication problems, like the "Arabic" numbers originated in "India" in the 6th or 7th century?
That’s because the apologist methodology requires first the attempt to convince the victim of an unspecific god that is not the one they believe in, then the shells move and there is a later attempt to defend their specific version of their preferred god concept.
Modern Physics does not say X causes shift. It instead says that shift happens UNLESS there is some rule to prevent this. So given infinite time the universe just happens. It's very unlikely, but roll the dice often enough and they all come up six-six-six etc.
When we say that socks have a purpose, we mean that we have assigned the purpose to socks in our heads. The purpose of socks is not in the socks themselves but in our minds.
To answer your question, Yes. It does mean a lot that IRON came down from the sky. Like Antarctica, the Arabian and Saharan deserts present new meteorite falls quite strikingly, with the blackened rocks standing out against the relatively smooth and lighter background. Among Muhammad's countrymen, metallurgy was a regional business, and iron meteorites were a significant source material. They were also thought to be associated with the polytheistic divinities of the sky and land and thus were preserved in sacred precincts and worshiped. Like thunderbolts, iron meteorites are sent from the realm of the sky gods down to land, but unlike thunderbolts they are useful to man and not a means of judgement. This Muslim speaker reveals not only that he doesn't understand modern science, but that he doesn't understand primitive religion.
There’s an overwhelming condescending arrogance in most of the islamic apologetics I’ve seen. It makes it impossible to take their claims seriously when they’re so cowardly as to despise all questions.
Life is actually not blurry at all, it's very direct and mechanical. It starts with one cell, and that cell divides. It keeps dividing, and as that happens, new functions are added, building on the ones that exist. There is no blood before vessels, etc. Everything develops based on the stuff that comes before. Over time, millions of things develop doing things based on everything. If one thing is interrupted, the things dependent on it fail, which can lead to catastrophic fault and death. Just like you can't reach into a running internal combustion engine and change a critical component while it's running, you can't always bring humans back to life. The process where people come to life takes 9 months and must priced in a certain order. Sometimes if the system is interrupted, you can't restart it unless you go back to the beginning, but people can't do that. There no mystery, and no "life force", just a highly complex biological machine that only works by following a complex order of creation.
10:16 "Everything we know about creators . . . " We know absolutely nothing about creators. All the holy books of all the religions of the world tell us what about creators? The only thing I've learnt is that they are very similar to us, which is strong evidence that we created the creators.
'Evolution isn't conscious'. This is common religious/animist thinking, attributing a personality to an object or process. Islamic apologetics often insists that that physical things such as atoms or stars only 'know' what to do because they have agreed to follow Allah's instructions.
I'd really love to see what would be the result of all the Quaran books being taken away and having all those who memorised it write it down. with no collaboration among them.
I tell the few current friends who were formerly my Christian brothers and sisters that I now worship The God Who Made A Rock Too Large For Him To Lift. I worship Him by turning away and pretending I didn't notice His embarrassing predicament.
@@dugonman8360 The paradox isn't real. It is only apparent, a mismatch of our ill-defined vocabulary and our vague intuitions. Just so, the omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent God isn't real. He is the name we give to these three qualities that have no defined meaning and no possibility of existing in this, or the same, universe. Qualities like omnipotence are natural and rational contradictions, in themselves and alongside the others. They cease to exist when a person examines them closely. You and I can make things too large for us to lift. Why can't a God? If we had such a God, whose abilities were in accord with natural law, I might share a beer with Him. But merely a concept of a God--a God whose qualities never impinge upon each other, whose actions are not constrained by the brute conflict between, say, justice and mercy--I don't foresee real beings like humans ever intersecting with such an incongruous abstraction.
"Cause and effect" had never been proved to be an immutable characteristic of reality. In fact at a certain point it necessarily breaks down with the problem of Infinite Return, which says that if everything needs a cause, then everything needs a cause, and everything needs a cause, and everything needs a cause... Infinity. Which is to say that if the universe needs a cause which is God, then God also needs a cause. If you decide at any point that God doesn't need a cause because he is the uncaused cause, you have to show who the universe itself couldn't have been "uncaused". So the deeply intuitive law of "cause and effect" clearly breaks down, indicating that it may not be an endemic, universal principle of reality itself. And we must keep in mind that anything we see might turn out to be just an "expression" of reality, and not necessarily ultimate reality itself. If the universe is a simulation, then everything we see may just be a display of a calculation that we are part of. The universe we see may not be any more "real" than what we see on a computer screen. We see things moving, but in a simulation they aren't actually moving, they are just constantly being redrawn in a different position that looks like it's moving. So then if there's a God, what is he actually doing?
Btw with the expanding universe verse it doesn't actually say that, the actual word is heaven or heavens and guess what similar verses is in the bible and that refers to the firmament and not universe, so no it doesn't say that and also Muslims love to claim they mentioned it first but wrong if you go to Buddhism (a religion with no creator god too) it mentions cosmic expansion and contractions (basically in Buddhism the universe is born expands then contracts then starts again, so infinite big crunch universe) so not only did a godless religion beat them by 1000 years but in better detail too, so even if it did say expanding universe (it doesn't) that's not a sign for god as shown by Buddhists
Hindsight. There's a lot of nonsense in the Quran, but they never mention that. Instead they reinterpret some parts to mean something in line with some common knowledge, even if no one ever made that interpretation before the scientific discovery. The Quran has never been used as a guide for new discoveries, and there's a reason for that.
@@hullie7529 facts also another favourite of mine is ostrich egg shaped earth, that originated In the 80s by a Quranist (so heretic to many Muslims) and a man who claimed he was a prophet who did his own translation, the actual verse says spread out, or spread out like how a ostrich spreads out land to lay a egg so flat, I have had Muslim try that on me but I always ask them to find a translation before 80s they can't and will just insult you
What is your objectively demonstrable, independently verifiable, consistently testable, repeatable on demand, measurable and falsifiable credible professional evidence of any specific version of a presuppositional so-called god? Crickets.
Here’s what I ask people who throw about god : what created god? Did god come from nothing? If so, how? Did god create itself? If so, from what? If God wasn’t created and always existed, did god create other planets of other humans? And so on..they usually walk away by this point 😂
If something is true then it should be able to survive scrutiny which the Quran didn't. Science has proved both the bible and the quran wrong. And wanna hear a truth? I am God. Source: This comment. It's written right here, so it must be true.
"See this? God created it!" Yeah I see the thing... but those declarations are worthless without showing the "creator" itself .... and we're never getting that are we?
"barefoot, naked, destitute shepherds competing in constructing tall buildings"... Well that's never actually happened. Oil rich countries have produced tall buildings. No shepherds were involved.
FFS that echo effect annoys the crap out of me. What do they think they achieve with it? This was piss poor attempt to convert children barely capable of walking... Holy hell this was bad. Keep up with your good work, London.
My parents didn't "give me life", the combined two living cells and that grew into the body that I live in. If you look at a biological/chemical level the the terms "life" and "death" are extremely blurred. A cell can be "alive" but when it gets damaged beyond repair we tend to think of the cell being "dead" even though the pars that make up the cell are still the in the same state they were a second ago when the cell was considered to be alive. So where's the line? The "who is the original life-giver" argument is a very feeble variation of the "unmoved mover" argument; Everything that exists has a creator, but that would be an infinite series of creators and that makes no sense so there has to be one creator that started it all and that was itself not created. The stupidity being that if god is real and exists without being created then "existing without being created" is a possibility in reality, just like "having a red color". Basically: if god is real and exists without a creator then anything can exist without a creator and the big bang could have started without a creator too. If god is eternal then being eternal" is a possibility in reality and the universe could be eternal. The only way out of this is to do massive special pleading and just insisting that no, only your preferred god can be eternal. Ok, prove it. :-)
The Quranic text is a collection of different mythologies and events that happed. In different times and places. The original Quranic text was a collection of hymns, lectionaries, exegisis and homilies written by syriac non trinitarian christian monks later Abdal Malik would compile into Book form when the Abbasids came to power they slowley gradually over time added new chapters ans verses into the Quranic text until they all agreed one reading and destroyed all the others Islam we know of today was created in the Abbasid period. Prophet Muhammad never existed he was simply a legendary figure crated by merging existing figures.
As an ex-Muslim, I have to correct you. The Quran doesn't say that multiple people were the first Muslim. It teaches that Adam was the first Muslim (i.e., one who submitted to Allah's will). The only other person it mentions in that way is Muhammad, and the context of that is he was the first of the Muslims, as in a practitioner of the officially revealed religion of Islam. That's not a contradiction.
11:45 it would work if Greek Mythology was right lol. they would just battle each other, explaining other things. Also that is assuming that the CREATOR has to manually make it rain!
I am baffled as to why so many RU-vid creators have difficulty taming their plosives. I mean, how hard can it be? Stop blowing straight into your microphone and/or invest in a pop filter.
@@danger.snakes I'm not entirely sure, I just know that it was Hubble that found the evidence for expansion, so if you're right and it was in Einstein's work it was Hubble that showed he was correct
O5:12 When a theist says ‘Alright lets think about this’ you just know that’s exactly what they haven’t actually done as is proven by their car crash regurgitated simplistic not very well thought out examples they give you.
The Earth's core is Iron & nickel. It comes as no surprise to learn that this wasn't known to Muhammad, because it wasn't known by anyone at the time. I would venture to suggest that Muhammad was referring to meteoritic iron.
I am not anti-religion in the least, and I find many religions to be a source of wisdom and beautiful poetry, but most of them are more religions of confirmation bias than they are much of anything else, chiefly for the people that argue for their validity or reject science in favor of creationism. They all rely on some past perso or proof that says it is true or real, but you cannot test the proof yourself or ask the person themselves, you must believe they told the truth and did not lie. But by their own belief, man is fallible and sinful, man could and would lie, so why believe him? Wouldn’t something written by God, rather than man, serve better as proof? Any way, I find it all very arbitrary. If they believe, they should have faith and believe, but these are not the days of conversion and crusading, I wish they wouldn’t try to convert others or prove their religion and just be happy that God is with them, they shouldn’t need more than that, right?
As an Arabic speaker who also does poetry the quran isn't really that well written nor is it unmatched. If you remove the fear element it's quite redundant and contradicts itself quite a lot. Also it is not very well capable of being matched it actually was by a guy named Musaylama and he wrote a very well replica of the Quran but guess what they killed him. Also the version of the quran we have today did not even come from one men let alone Mohammed himself aince they started writing it about 2 decades after his death from memory and it went through few rewriting since then and Arabic didn't have "dots" at first then those were added so that could change the whole scripture and historically a bunch of it was thrown into a river because like any other religion it was just a political tool so yeah this thing we have here is not that different from the bible when it comes to howany people wrote ot it's just less honest about it.
if god has been forever and the universe is just 5 billion years old what has he been doing all that forever-billion years? it has not been thinking or designing, because -> did a shitty job.
Amazing video. You put into worlds the things I want to but don't have the knowledge or eloquence in order to do so. I like how you point out the inherit bias most apologetics have of looking at scientific processes and theories through the lens of a theist. It's always "who" created everything to them and they are unable to simply consider the fact that we might just not know what created the universe.
was...was.. that comic sans? well that was an appropriate choice Why would a god need more than 1 prophet? why does it keep making such mistakes that it needs to then correct if its omni?
Who made the creator that creates. Who gave the creator the ability to create. I can do this all day long. _Nothing existed_ is a bald assertion a empty presumption undemonstrated unsubstantiated. Something had to start everything is another bald assertion unsubstantiated presumption. It had to be this it had to be that no evidence just presumption introduced by assertion no legs to stand on no mouth to speak from. Low hanging fruit made into very weak sauce. 🙄
You said all of that, but never give your argument on why it wasn't God that make the universe. You just can't (wouldn't) believe that there's an intelligent involved in the creation of the world. Which is important for the universal law to stay constant at all time. Your argument is basically "we can't prove God existence, therefore it doesn't exist", but the same argument can be made vice versa. In fact, it's more logical to conclude that there's a cause/creator/God than there's none or it's just impossible for anything to even existed at all. What that video telling you is pretty simple. You can't have an infinite regression of something or nothing will ever started. The "cause and effect" phenomena had to exist at all the time and consistent, just like every law of physique discovered by human. If the first cause is the "Big Bang", how does the Big Bang exist in the first place?
The simplest reason why it wasn’t god is that there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, something can be dismissed offhand. No body, no crime. And you, I believe, need to watch the video again. Cause and effect is an emergent property of the Big Bang, as we understand it. No reason to think it existed “before” if there even was such a thing as “before.”
"this person is assuming that big bang started from nothing". Well, that is your assumption of him (so, who is actually making assumption here?). Had he said that in that video? No. Oh, muslims take on nothing is, the absent of everything by the way. But im surprised that you only mentioned "dont know" just 4 times and "don't really know" just twice in this video (unless i missed some). Either way, your only arguments are simply making assumption of others or, you "dont know". Well, you are finished if thats the case. Why would you even bother to spend breath on making this over half hour video? You can just prompt a.i to make those kind of easy argument. The a.i even makes better argument than you. What a disappointing. I thought atheists could make better arguments than missionaries.
@@danger.snakes Well, you pretend of not knowing the evidence. Its not like, you dont know. But rather, you simply dont want to know. If you dont know, rationally, the next step you would take is learning.
Should a "creator" exist and build our world in a week, the other "creators" would tear them and their work apart for their arrogance. A two dimensional element shifted creating a third(and fourth) dimension resulting in a "big bang". If I'm wrong so be it, but show your workings as to why.
Often times fundagelicals will try to point out that the Bible is true because of its "accurate" prophecies, just like the Muslims do. But, even if the prophecies were true-that doesn't make everything else in their holy book true or worthwhile.Prophecy fulfillment is about as close as they can get to showing that their book comes from a supernatural source.But maybe, instead of being supernatural, the "prophet" is just some kind've genius/prodigy and is able to calculate the future better than most.The psychic Edgar Caysey was able to make some interesting predictions(?), but should we let his book tell us how to live? Even the Bible talks about false prophets who, although their prophecies might come to pass,will lead you away to worship other gods-that will tell you how they want you to live-through a priest or whatever.The Koran has some shitty morals, like stoning to death gays and any woman who may look sideways at a man.The book informs them to make their women submit to their husbands to the max.And, like Christianity, their Koran promotes war and conquering.Also, other holy books seems to have gotten scientific principles right before it's time.
